It’s been 17 days since plaintiffs started their case in the civil case of Sines v Kessler – seven days longer than they were allotted as they plodded and meandered in trying to make their case that the defendants conspired to commit racially motivated violence – and on Tuesday they finally rested.
One cheeky observer noted that sitting through their aggravating interrogations of defendants, their cloying presentations of one-sided evidence from plaintiffs witnesses, and their pedantic combing through social media posts and memes was worse than the “Holocaust.”
Plaintiffs finished up the morning cross-examining pro se defendant Christopher Cantwell, and played two video depositions from Hunter Wallace, aka Brad Griffin, from Occidental Dissent, and one from Ben Daley of the “Rise Above Movement,” who was compelled to testify and agree with the plaintiffs’ spin on UTR events as part of his criminal plea bargain.
Testifying under obvious legal duress – much like Nuremberg trial witnesses were forced to – Daley testified that he had conspired to go to Charlottesville in August 2017 to commit racially motivated violence. His irritation at being compelled to testify like this was evident to listeners. If he didn’t testify as he did, his plea deal could have been revoked.
“This is really sick. Plaintiffs are playing a deposition of RAM's Ben Daley. Sadistic Arch-Jew lawyer Bloch is questioning Daley in the recording. Daley is legally required to say ‘yes’ to many of Bloch's questions about "violence" because of a prior conviction,” explained National Justice Party’s Gregory Conte. “The whole exchange sounds like a torture session. It's a farce of justice.”
The Jewish attorneys for the plaintiff in the deposition also asked of Daley – as they have so many defendants on the stand – about his attitude towards Jews and whether he considered Jews to be White.
How this obsessive line of questioning goes to establish their claim of a conspiracy to commit racial violence is unclear.
Cantwell spent his cross-examination of himself (he was among the last witnesses called by the plaintiffs to the stand, and opposing counsel are allowed to cross-examine any plaintiff witness) putting into context a number of audio clips plaintiffs brought into evidence Monday where he appeared to be endorsing political violence.
Cantwell explained the use of the term “violence” in libertarian/arnacho-capitalist terminology and how it’s use in political discussion is not a call to violence.
He also showed video that put his own use of violence in self-defense Aug. 11-12 into context.
After the last plaintiffs’ witness, US District Court Judge Norman K. Moon then read to the jury instructions regarding Eli Kline and Robert “Azzmador” Ray, who have declined to participate in this case.
As a result, the court ruled the following as “facts” in this case.
1. Kline was a leader of IE.
2. Kline conspired to engage in racially motivated violence.
3. Kline was motivated by animus against racial minorities, Jews and their supporters.
4. It was reasonably foreseeable by Kline and intended by him that co-defendants would commit violence and intimidation.
5. After UTR, Kline ratified the racially motivated violence.
1. That Robert Ray was a Daily Stormer writer.
2. Ray conspired to engage in racially motivated violence.
3. Ray was motivated by animus against racial minorities, jews and their supporters.
4. It was reasonably foreseeable by Ray and intended by him that co-defendants would commit violence and intimidation.
5. After UTR, Ray ratified the racially motivated violence.
This affects the case against Kline and Ray only. It does not, in legal theory, have any bearing on the other defendants.
Cantwell and pro se defendant Richard Spencer then moved for the case to be dismissed for lack of plaintiffs’ evidence, a rule 50 request.
Judge Moon denied this motion – which is common for a court – while two attorneys for the defense said they will file a similar motion in writing after the jury has the case, meaning after the defense rests.
Finally, 17 days after the plaintiffs started – they were initially allotted 10, were given an extra week, and still took an extra two days on top of that – Spencer started the first case for the defense in the late morning.
Spencer showed lengthy video that showed him and others demanding their right to peacefully assemble, and that they were there to speak, not commit violence. He showed how he pleaded with police to do their jobs – which they did not – and that they had a permit for the rally.
He also got to put into context his infamous "drunken rant" that he performed in front of six people in a private gathering. The rant was recorded by David Reilly, who leaked it to Jewish homosexual internet personality Milo Yiannapolis.
And in the course of his case, Spencer expressed his extreme dislike of co-defendant and UTR organizer Jason Kessler, who has done the same on the stand.
Spencer then started a lengthy discussion about his views on race, identity and Judaism.
Plaintiffs objected and Judge Moon cut Spencer short.
Spencer correctly pointed out that the plaintiffs grilled him and his co-defendants as to their attitude on Jews over and over again.
“If the plaintiff's made the personal beliefs of the defendants an issue, they should be allowed to testify as to their personal beliefs. The plaintiffs brought in ‘experts’ who have never met the defendants, nor were they witnesses to the protest, to testify as to the defendant's personal beliefs,” said NJP Chairman Mike Peinovich. “Once they did that, the court should let the defendants expound on their beliefs all they want.
“Defendants should literally call an expert witness on Jews like Dr. Kevin MacDonald,” Peinovich said on his Telegram channel.
Judge Moon said he has tried to limit inadmissible or irrelevant evidence in this case, but he admitted he "failed many times,” which, as another observer noted, sounds like grounds for an immediate appeal.
Spencer gave a brief exposition on racial identity and metaphysical politics, showing that he meant “war” in a political sense and as a metaphor rather than literally, as the plaintiffs have asserted.
Cantwell then took the stand to make his case. He played his interview with Jason Kessler on an August 2017 episode of “The Radical Agenda,” where Kessler said he had talked to the local police and the most credible threat of violence was from Antifa saying they would bomb the event.
This was an interview the day before Charlottesville.
Cantwell then read transcripts from his show and posts to his audience, which effortlessly dismantled the assertion that he and others worked in conspiracy to commit racially motivated violence. In fact they showed that organizers were especially concerned about instructing rallygoers that they were not to come openly armed, or to provoke counter-protesters or police.
“The evidence that Cantwell has introduced in his testimony today, which has been primarily clips from his show Radical Agenda, is completely refuting the plaintiff’s argument that he and others came with the intent to break the law and commit acts of violence,” said one noted observer on his Telegram channel.
“The clips of Cantwell in the week prior to Aug 12, 2017 show a man who is prepared to defend himself from violent attackers (his right as an American), but who is going to great lengths to avoid being put in a situation of conflict: speaking with Kessler to make sure that the rally goers and the counter protestors are separated by police barricade, urging people to understand the risk they take coming to an event like this armed, nailing down the specifics of the event so that he can prevent himself from being put in a situation where he could get arrested,” said Apache, a Third Rail co-host.
Cantwell also played his body camera footage of a meeting he had in a Walmart parking lot on the eve of Charlottesville. There was a confrontation with Antifa, but Cantwell could clearly be heard saying to his followers and listeners present, "Don't interact with them if you don’t have to, leave them alone,” which undermined plaintiffs’ assertion that they were there with the intention of committing racially motivated violence.
He also played body cam footage of the local police arriving to the confrontation because someone reported that Cantwell had pulled a sidearm on the Antifa.
The bodycam footage proved to the police that he didn’t pull his weapon, and hopefully to the jury that Antifa lie to get what they want.
He also played a Vice video where he was interviewed by Elle Reeve. She asked if it would be advantageous for him to appear as a victim if Antifa attacked the rally, but he said no because even if he was a victim he would still be put on trial for defending himself, thus predicting the trial into which he entered that recording into evidence.
Cantwell also played audio of him speaking to Kessler about the torch march where Cantwell is recorded saying, "If I'm involved I want the cops involved.”
Plaintiffs spent a lot of time discussing a supposed "front stage/back stage" distinction, to the effect that defendants were allegedly “be seen as clean cut and peaceful in public, while secretly planning violence.”
Cantwell's video and audio recordings demonstrated vividly that the reality is the exact opposite: all the talk of "race war" and "political violence" was bluster intended for a mass audience, while off stage and behind closed doors the UTR planners and speakers repeatedly emphasized the importance of remaining nonviolent and complying with lawful orders from the police, furthermore emphasizing the strictly peaceful nature of any planned civil disobedience in response to any unlawful orders.
He also played footage from the brawls that broke out during the torchlight rally, showing the aggressors were Antifa counter-protesters.
It just occurred that Cantwell may be employing a brilliant sub-strategy besides his overt defense: After three-and-a-half droning weeks of the plaintiffs pedantically argued case, Cantwell gave the jury a break by letting them watch amateur fight videos.
As always, National Justice cautions readers that how testimony and evidence is received by outside observers is not necessarily how a jury will receive it. Predicting the outcome of a jury trial is always problematic for that reason.
The trial was originally expected to last two more weeks including this week, but word in the court room is now that it will go longer.
This is a civil trial and the jury consists of 12 members with no alternates. Jurors could drop out or be dismissed, but as long as six remain there can be a verdict.
The standard of finding here is a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. A finding of liability in this court would require a unanimous verdict.
At heart in this case, is the 10 plaintiffs and their attorneys who allege that the defendants “conspired to commit racially motivated violence” at the legally permitted Unite the Right rally held in August 2017. The 2017 lawsuit – amended in 2019 – lists 20 White nationalist organizations and individuals, including the Daily Stormer’s Andrew Anglin, Matt Parrot, Matt Heimbach, Jason Kessler, Richard Spencer, Christopher Cantwell, the League of the South, the National Socialist Movement, the defunct Traditional Workers Party and Identity Evropa, and at least two chapters of the Ku Klux Klan.
The linchpin of the plaintiff’s lawsuit is the claim that organizers planned the rally with the purpose of committing violence. The independent Heaphy Report, which plaintiffs have desperately tried to avoid being introduced as evidence in the case, proves this accusation to be a blatant falsehood.